This summarizes a recent lecture of Prof. Hoffers on Arthur
Drews, one of the most famous Jesus-Mythers of the early 20th century.
(1865-1935)

Drews was a scholar of philosophy and German language at the
University of Karelsruhe. His inconvenient statements caused him frequently
trouble.

Arthur Drews is essentially heavily influenced by the
philosopher Eduard von Hartmann. von Hartmann's central topic is the
metaphysics of the nonconscious, even before Freud, Jung, and the likes,
started scientific psychoanalysis. Though apparently having influenced those
great psychotherapeutic scholars, the latter ones did not acknowledge his
works.

The nonconscious, so Eduard von Hartmann,
"creates" the world through an act of differentiation, sundering
apart the original all-unity. Thus the nonsconscious is some impersonal or
transpersonal deity, and the original identity of divinity, man, and cosmos got
lost, but is seeked to be restored.

Drews wrote many essays, some belletristic, some
philosophical-scholarly. He tried to advance at university with some essays on
the philosophy of I. Kant, but through the glasses of von Hartmann. This was
rejected by the academic circles. Many controversal philosophical essays
followed. In 1909, the first tome of Drews' The Christ Myth was published,
inevitably causing a lot of havoc.

Two years later, Drews added a second tome refuting the
argument of his conservative opponents. Drews was also influenced by Reverend
Kalthoff. Drews' main arguments concern the lack of reliable contemporary
witnesses from outside early Christianity, the dependence on older myths, and
many difficulties that modern theology slipped into. Of course his academic
career suffered from the controversies, but this could not stop Drews.

·He published a booklet on the history of ancient
monism.

·He also put his own religious concepts, based of course
on Eduard von Hartmann, down in a catechism-like booklet.

·In 1921, he published a work on the Gospel of Mark as
witness against the historicity of Jesus: It is shown howMark's reflects an astromythical triple
journey along the zodiac.

·In 1922, there was an essay against Steiner's
Anthroposophy.

·In 1923 he published a general introduction into astral
mythology, and its influence on early Christianity.

·In 1924 he published a book plausibilizing the
evolution of Christianity out of a general Gnostic background.

·Then a book on a general psychology based on Eduard von
Hartmann was presented.

·In 1926, Drews gave an essay on the history of the
denial of the historicity of Jesus.

·Also some essays concerning the Mary myth was
published.

·In 1931, a book on Wagner and Nietzsche appeared. He
was dealing with Wagner already much earlier, and got now rejected as before.

Some of the works concerning early Christianity have been
translated.

Despite the academic rejection of Drews, the large amount of
articles and essays in journals shows that there was a significant interest in
the works of Arthur Drews.

The University of Karelsruhe never mentions Drews in its
memory articles that resume the history of the university.

The city of Karelsruhe on one occasion published an article
in memoriam.

Drews is encountered nowadays occasionally in the references
of articles concerning Wagner- and Nietzsche, also his book about Plotinus is.
Unlike in Germany, the book The Christ Myth is still available in America.Only Detering tried to restore another lost
text about the history of the ahistoricity of Jesus recently.

Modern standard encyclopedias on philosophy virtually ignore
Drews.

Just as in the case Eduard von Hartmann, academic Philosophy
is deeply ashamed of Drews. They were outsiders with no 'school' and
'disciples' to continue and honour the works of their master. Drews intruded
frequently into theological etc. questions, without being a theologian, etc.
which upset the members of those faculties with whose questions he meddled
with. Also his polemics against the philosophy of Nietzsche made him unbearable
for virtually all German philosophical faculties.

Also, though not being a member of the National Socialist
German Workers Party (NSDAP), Drews showed affinities to a 'German religion'
project,similar to that of Goebbels,
which made him appear as a Nazi.

On the other hand, Drews spoke against the growing
antisemitism during the Weimarian Republic. As a scholar, Drews had always been
objective and honest.

Drews was literate in many languages. He was temporarily a
friend of Albert Schweitzer, the famous theologian and physician.

So why should one still today occupy oneself with studying
the works of Arthur Drews? For one, many of his texts are of general interest,
like the works about Wagner, the history of early Christianity, and astral
mythology. It is worth the effort to put up with the various arguments of
Drews. It is by no means a priori clear that Drews' methodology may be called
outdated. Is the question about the historicity of Jesus really settled? Any
own occupation with arguments about it are worth the trouble.

Then there are historical and social reasons, like the
contacts to the clubs (for example, federation of monists) and publisher
companies (for example, Diderichs), leading to a great publicity and public
appearance. The strategies and motivations for this appearance are worth an
examination.

Drews may not be a unique case, one should look for
parallels.

And it is of course to be asked whether the broad rejection
is anywhere near justified.

A more accurate appreciation of Drews requires a more extensive
biographic and bibliographic representation. One could search for hints among
the surviving family members, the clubs and publishers mentioned above, his
temporary friends and students (L. Ziegler), and publicists in the Wagner area
who referred to Drews. This implies many little steps that, after coordinated
and directed, may lead to a proper appreciation of Arthur Drews.